Dr. Laura on the Radio

Menu

Category Archives: Masculinity

I hear from (and about) a lot of women who say they’re not interested in sex, and they are married to men who vowed fidelity, and so those men are now literally out in the cold.

Many women can be quite cruel about their behavior: telling their husbands to “just deal with it” or challenge them into getting a “girlfriend.” These same women may throw a fit if their husband pleasures himself while watching Internet pornography consisting of a man and a woman engaged in passionate sex.

Sheesh! They can’t have it both ways, unless women expect their men to bust their buns taking care of children and a wife without the normal, expected “reward” of love and passion.

Some women have medical issues which cut down on their feeling sexy, but not many medical issues truly inhibit women from pleasing their husbands, and then discovering themselves getting “turned on” in the process.

Most of the time, too many wives just get lazy and self-centered about taking care of their romantic and sexual lives because of kids’ schedules, friends and relatives, and “busy busy” stuff that just consumes every ounce of their energy. Let’s be honest – that’s an excuse and not a real reason. You can pace yourself and make choices. Many women don’t bother, and feel that the sexual needs of their husbands are burdens to them and not a compliment or offer of ecstasy.

Interestingly, many of these women are the ones who call me, complaining that their husbands don’t do much for them on Valentine’s Day, or birthdays and anniversaries. Are you kidding? What is he to celebrate? Marriage and family have turned him into an asexual monk!

Women’s sexuality requires “priming,” while guys are just about always “ready to roll.” A lot of that priming has to happen in her head: thinking affectionately about sensual things, bathing, primping and flirting – the kinds of things wives tend to leave at the altar or in the birthing room.

I have come to feel sorry for husbands in general in America today. The feminist mentality that has labeled any male needs as “oppression” has certainly poisoned a lot of minds out there.

If you think you’re one of those, or if you need your attitude jump-started, read The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. It’s helped a lot of women get happier.

Elizabeth Birmingham, an Assistant Professor of English at North Dakota State University teaches professional writing. These days, American college students need English professors, since most of them use their thumbs to communicate, and don’t know how to write complete sentences. Ms. Birmingham, however, also teaches women’s studies courses, and in a recent essay (where she reviews a few women’s studies books), she mentions me:

“Women’s studies programs are already acutely aware of the ways our courses regularly contain content demonized by right-wing politicians and are laughed at by the media. We study and discuss issues of reproductive rights, sexuality, critical race studies, critical media studies and gender construction, occasionally in the jargon-filled language of the academy. In her nationally syndicated radio program, Dr. Laura Schlessinger counsels parents not to let their children attend colleges with women’s studies programs.”

Damn straight – these courses provide nothing useful, in my opinion, to help young women perform happily in math, science, engineering, music, etc., nor do they contribute to a rejoicing in impending marriage and motherhood. They simply make women cynical and angry and vulgar. Many universities have actually added porn studies to the curriculum because they catch attention and make money – not goals normally attributed to halls of higher learning.

These types of studies are generally hostile to men and to opposing points of view. I’ve gotten enough letters from young women around the country taking these classes who report that all my positions are completely vilified, and I am generally personally defamed, and never once have I been asked to be a visiting lecturer. So much for enlightenment as a motivation for women’s studies programs.

In her essay, Ms. Birmingham quotes:

“From a feminist perspective, the project of masculinity studies can be quite suspect…although most feminists recognize that masculinity is not a natural or essential identity for men, but rather a social construction open to interrogation and change. Some feminists see gender/masculinity studies as a sort of hostile institutional takeover that effectively shifts critical attention away from the conditions of women and returns it to the ‘plight’ of men.”

Wow, wow and…wow. Feminists don’t see masculinity as a real entity – just that men are women with penises who are led astray by right-wing and religious cultural influences to behave in that “bad bad boy” way. Thus the rampant demasculinization of men since the 1960s, and the tendency – the blind tendency – of women to treat their husbands with disrespect and disregard as they are simply the constructs of the evil empire.

I wrote The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands for just these women, so they would wake up and see that their femininity is not a construct of an evil culture, but a blessing to be nurtured in the context of the polarity with masculinity – which, by the way is real and inherent in men, unless it is threatened out of them.

I stand by my position: if you have children ready to go off to an institution of higher learning, make sure it is such, and avoid all colleges with women’s studies programs. They will stunt the ability of your daughters and sons to enjoy their natural instincts and retard their abilities to be content in love relationships with each other in marriage.

You’ve heard me talk about the differences between men and women (beyond the obvious physical ones). One of my listeners has come smack up against the one where guys talk about their sexual prowess, and she now questions her own position that intimate details are private matters. I have an answer for her:

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don’t mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst. She’s also “decided” that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men “lend a hand in housework,” are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.

I say: unbelievable feminista hogwash!! The professor’s definition of a good husband is ridiculous. Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don’t do what used to be called “women’s work.” This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they’re told that they’re neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.

When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband’s route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren’t able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues. They say “no,” but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.

In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there’s a “war” about who’s going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.

There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting. When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate. Women don’t stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps. Why? It’s the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.

Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women’s studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.

A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands. Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them. This particular study? Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam.

A news headline from last week that said “Power Move By Male Students Ruffles University of Chicago” caught my eye. It seems a group of University of Chicago students think it’s time the campus focused more on its men. The Chicago Tribune reports: “A third year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men In Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group’s emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.”

That is purely laughable.

Recent job losses hit men harder – women earn far more bachelor’s and Master’s degrees than men. There is a huge imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interest of women and girls (often to the direct detriment of men), like Title IX, which eliminates men’s school sports when there aren’t enough women interested in having a women’s team of the same sport.

The University of Chicago has nine women’s advocacy groups on campus. This group would be the first male advocacy group – and it welcomes women! Get a feminist group to do the same – HA! The group would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, foster ties with alumni, bring speakers in to discuss masculinity, and mentor local middle school students as part of its “Little Men in Power” initiative.

I read most of the 1,440 or so comments that followed this article in the Chicago Tribune, and saw exactly what I expected: paranoid, hate-filled rhetoric, demeaning and dismissing men and masculinity, with no compassion whatsoever for what men have to confront in contemporary society (which is “angry minority orientation against the male – especially the white male.”). It should be noted here that this organization is pulling in men regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual persuasion. It is just about men. It’s not about forming small, angry little groups that demand entitlement. This is a group helping men succeed and regain a respect for their masculinity – something current culture and feminism has worked double time to destroy.